Assault on the man woman union XX In XXMilton’s great Paradise Lost,Adam prepares a garland of flowers for Eve, unaware that she has just eaten the forbidden fruit and that she is on her way back from the tree and about to ask him to join her in her sin.
XX“ADAM, soon as he heard
The fatal Trespass don by EVE, XXamaz'd,
Astonied stood and Blank, while horror chill
Ran through his veins, and all his joynts XXrelax'd;
From his slack hand the Garland XXwreath'd for EVE
Down XXdrop'd, and all the faded Roses shed:
Speechless he stood and pale, till thus at length
First to himself he inward silence broke.
XX“ O fairest of Creation, last and best
Of all Gods Works - - -.
XX“ How art thou lost, how on a sudden lost,
XX Defac't, deflourd, and now to Death XXdevote?”
And without hesitation he goes on:
XX“And mee with thee hath ruind, for with thee
Certain my resolution is to Die;
How can I live without thee, how forgoe
Thy sweet Converse and Love so dearlyXX joyn'd,
To live again in these wilde Woods XXforlorn?”
XX“Should God create another EVE, and I
Another Rib afford, yet loss of thee
Would never from my heart; no no, I feel
The Link of Nature draw me: Flesh of Flesh,
Bone of my Bone thou art, and from thy State
Mine never shall be parted, bliss or XXwoe.”
After further musings on the dire consequences of what she has done and the position she has now put him in he adds:
XX“However I with thee have fixt my Lot,
Certain to undergoe like doom, if Death
Consort with thee, Death is to mee as Life;
So forcible within my heart I feel
The Bond of Nature draw me to my owne,
My own in thee, for what thou art is mine;
Our State cannot be severd, we are one,
One Flesh; to loose thee were to loose my XXself.”
In her reply Eve says:
XX“O glorious trial of exceeding Love XX- - - .”
XX “To undergoe with mee one Guilt, one Crime,
If any be, of tasting this fair XXFruit,”
Which she sees as presenting an opportunity.
XX “This happie trial of thy Love, which else
So eminently never had bin XXknown.”
The choice is clear for Adam. Obey God and stay in Paradise, likely with a new Eve, or join her in her sin and accept the consequences.
He took the apple from her and ate it.
XX“Earth trembl'd from her entrails, as again
In pangs, and Nature gave a second groan,
Skie XXlowr'd, and muttering Thunder, som sad drops
Wept at compleating of the mortal XXSin.”
I am 83. I met my wife when she was sixteen and I seventeen and was with her for 61 years, fifty five of them married, until she passed away over five years ago. We raised two children.
XX Since she passed, I have been helping families who try to flee from the XXstate’s child protection agencies to prevent their children being seized and placed into state care.
Fifty years ago when my children were born there was no possibility of a social worker knocking on our door and then with the help of the police seizing our children. Nor was there any such a possibility over the twenty years or so they were growing up. Such an incident was unimaginable. The family had authority and status. I as a husband and father was the main protector of my wife and children.
XX However, over the past twenty years or so in the West and especially in the XXEnglish-speaking countries, the State has usurped the role of, not just the father, but of parent and family under an ideology known as XX‘child protectison’. Fundamental to this ideology is the notion that the State, not parents, knows what is best for children. As this was being written, Ian Kennedy, a professor at University College London, was reported as saying that children do not belong to their parents but to the State. This doctrine flies in the face of not just the natural world but of evolution itself.
The assault on the father is even more extreme than that on the family. Ironically, the ideologies of victim feminism and state child protection, which drive fathers from the family home, allow the entry of boyfriends and step fathers into the home. These men may lack the protective instinct of the natural father.
XX As if the assault on parents and the family was not enough, it is now clear that there is an assault on the fundamental element of the family XX- the union of man and woman.
XX I had already seen signs of this in my work with families fighting to keep their children. Social workers, mainly women, did not like the male partners of the women whose children they sought to seize. In the few cases where a woman managed to keep her children it was usually on condition that she break with her man. In the UK where most of my experience has been, this was in an environment where many young men were already severely disenfranchised. With social services intervention the man became just extra useless baggage, a threat to the XXmother’s chances of keeping her children.
But the assault on the union of man and woman is coming not just from the assault on the family but from the new ideology of gender identity.
The British writer, Melanie McDonagh, writing in The Spectator, said, XX “The enemy on this particular battleground is anyone who maintains that there are men and there are women, and that the difference between them is XXfundamental.”
Fifty and thirty years ago the thought that a social worker could knock on our door to take our children was unimaginable. Now children are being taught in school to question their biological gender and accept that it can be blurred and fluid or that girl can be boy and boy can be girl.
XX Melanie McDonagh also wrote:XX “Gender cannot be at real risk because it is anchored in an immutable reality. What is on the cards is oppression, socially engineered dysfunction and the loss of individual XXfreedom.”
So where has this extraordinary new ideology come from?
Thank Heavens that there are a few brave thinkers prepared to stand up and denounce it, especially as it has invaded the law to the extent that it is becoming a crime in some countries to insist that men and women are different. Outstanding among these thinkers is Professor Gordon Peterson of the University of Toronto.
What Gordon Peterson also exemplifies is the role that universities in the West now play in both the promotion of NeoMarxist ideologies and in the suppression of free speech. His own university might have suppressed him had it not been for the huge media attention and audiences his videos received when he criticized the new Canadian legislation which enforces the acceptance of the fluidity of gender identity.
XX We can call it militant gender identity politics and it appears to have its source in what is called postmodern cultural Marxism. In other words Communism in a new expression, where the oppressed is no longer the exploited worker but a XX‘victim’ of some kind.
Masculinising women and feminising men strikes at the heart of the erotic so that they are less attractive to each other.
XX It is an assault on the one remaining Garden of Eden XX– the love of man and woman.